Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Mon, 15 August 2016 11:39 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C38612DA3A for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 04:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.769
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.769 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jAWeJ5HtBfCy for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 04:39:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A7BF12D904 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 04:39:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2164; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1471261196; x=1472470796; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=arT3kBqHYakJhtTgq/E1tfsXsGAjxPKzX0bY2qGj1tI=; b=AqWP9CjRt5PE/dw9q76gfA8JfDBjGfTnb1OY7QXxKi1TOhfFaMYzgOaK gwrcbJVn9QExLmADrSk8hYYy1AB72E2s3j0te5BA2R6u+ddvdwCSld070 SjboolGuA8NRq7lphC7Db12dWkp1ZjedAclUO9MgTKcpfcGQjTqnEfjr9 g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DPAQCvqbFX/xbLJq1ehBt8uTeBfSSFe?= =?us-ascii?q?QKBexQCAQEBAQEBAV4nhF4BAQQBAQE2NgoNBAsOAwQBAQEJFggHCQMCAQIBFR8?= =?us-ascii?q?JCAYBDAYCAQGIJQgOwAIBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXBYYqhE2KGwEEm?= =?us-ascii?q?T6PFoFrhFuDD4VujDeDeB42ghIcgU46MockAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,525,1464652800"; d="scan'208";a="683434235"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Aug 2016 11:39:54 +0000
Received: from [10.61.78.149] (ams3-vpn-dhcp3733.cisco.com [10.61.78.149]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u7FBdrOs029212; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 11:39:54 GMT
Message-ID: <57B1AA09.3070008@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 13:39:53 +0200
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>, OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
References: <5791D96B.6080907@cisco.com> <MWHPR05MB2829B34A5B8AB2F4489DC2AFA9060@MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR05MB2829B34A5B8AB2F4489DC2AFA9060@MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/aZdahYFaPtc-OT1Krvlpz4sZYZg>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 11:39:58 -0000

Hi Chris,

sorry for the delay, I was on PTO during last two weeks.
Please see inline:

On 03/08/16 16:45 , Chris Bowers wrote:
> Peter,
>
> Taking a looking at the whole paragraph into this sentence was added,
> I am not sure how to interpret it.
>
>     The SR-Algorithm Sub-TLV is optional.  It MAY only be advertised once
>     in the Router Information Opaque LSA.  If the SID/Label Range TLV, as
>     defined in Section 3.2, is advertised, then the SR-Algorithm TLV MUST
>     also be advertised.  If the SR-Algorithm TLV is not advertised by the
>     node, such node is considered as not being segment routing capable.
>
> Is this sentence intended to imply that if a router does not advertise
> the SR-Algorithm TLV including algorithm X, then any prefix-SIDs for
> algorithm X advertised by that router will be ignored by other routers?

in OSPF we do not have the SR capability TLV. We use SR-Algorithm TLV 
for that purpose. So if a router does not advertise the SR-Algorithm TLV 
for algorithm X, other routers should not send any SR traffic using SIDs 
that were advertised for algorithm X.

If the router does not advertise any SR Algorithm TLV, then the node is 
not SR capable and no SR traffic should be forwarded to such a node.

thanks,
Peter


>
> If this is the intention, then it would be better to state is more explicitly.
>
> If not, then the intended meaning should be clarified.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Psenak
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 3:30 AM
> To: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
> Subject: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft
>
> Hi All,
>
> following text has been added in the latest revision of the OSPFv2 SR
> draft, section 3.1.
>
> "If the SR-Algorithm TLV is not advertised by node, such node is
> considered as not being segment routing capable."
>
> Please let us know if there are any concerns regarding this addition.
>
> thanks,
> Peter
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> .
>